Would an ETV be able to visit Earth secretly?

[Fila]

On 03/01/2018 at 9:05 AM, stereologist said:

I guess you missed the part about survey telescopes. Your claim, which is wrong, is that astronomers

Astronomers look at more than distant parts of outer space. They do more than "zoomed in". Surveys use wide field methods.

I'm just pointing out that  you need to get things correct. You can certainly adjust your statements using  better information - that's all.

Thanks Stereo. I am totally open to being wrong.., its just that I need to see evidence. From my use with telescopes.., and star gazing (I won't call myself an amateur astronomer) there is no 100% coverage. I'm speaking from experience, so its hard to explain how it all works.

I just made up a quick diagram to help explain. Even if visibility is infinity.., we are still limited by distance and size of the objects.

We lose visual sight of a plane around 10kms away. We lose visual of a (350mm) drone at 300 meters away. Now if I flew my drone beyond 500 meters.., and a bit to the left or tight and asked you to spot it with your telescope (fixed magnification, no zoom).., you would have a hard time trying to find exactly where it is. As the object gets further away.., the field of view expands.

It's even hard for astronomers to find any planet or star.., just by pointing a scope. They need to use the eye-piece with less magnification to locate patterns of stars.., then figure out where to point the scope based on that, searching the small area for their object of study. 

I hope this helps explain my perspective. I was kinda rushed. I will take some time out to make a proper diagram using real photographs of drones and planes at different distances in an image like this to help show perspective.

Edited January 2, 2018 by Fila

[ChrLzs]

11 hours ago, Fila said:

I can in context to monitoring the Earth with satellites and radar being used to imply that UFOs or ETs cannot possible exist.

Will you STOP using STRAWMAN arguments?  No-one here is claiming that our sky surveillance will pick up everything, and it is HIGHLY disingenuous to say that we are.

We DO, however, surveil the sky much more comprehensively now than we ever have done in the past, and yet.... UFO reports (or at least those where off-worldly characteristics are claimed) are dropping down to almost zero. 

 

There's an incredibly obvious explanation for that, n'est-ce pas?

 

[Fila]

On 03/01/2018 at 9:05 AM, stereologist said:

I guess you missed the part about survey telescopes. Your claim, which is wrong, is that astronomers

Astronomers look at more than distant parts of outer space. They do more than "zoomed in". Surveys use wide field methods.

I'm just pointing out that  you need to get things correct. You can certainly adjust your statements using  better information - that's all.

I feel I have discussed this already in this post here  

 

[stereologist]

Just now, Fila said:

Thanks Stereo. I am totally open to being wrong.., its just that I need to see evidence. From my use with telescopes.., and star gazing (I won't call myself an amateur astronomer) there is no 100% coverage. I'm speaking from experience, so its hard to explain how it all works.

I just made up a quick diagram to help explain. Even if visibility is infinity.., we are still limited by distance and size of the objects.

We lose visual sight of a plane around 10kms away. We lose visual of a (350mm) drone at 300 meters away. Now if I flew my drone beyond 500 meters.., and a bit to the left or tight and asked you to spot it with your telescope (fixed magnification, no zoom).., you would have a hard time trying to find exactly where it is. As the object gets further away.., the field of view expands.

It's even hard for astronomers to find any planet or star.., just by pointing a scope. They need to use the eye-piece with less magnification to locate patterns of stars.., then figure out where to point the scope based on that, searching the small area for their object of study. 

I hope this helps explain my perspective. I was kinda rushed. I will take some time out to make a proper diagram and work on better wording perhaps.

I believe you are the only one pushing 100%. I don't recall a single poster suggesting that. It is probably time to drop that issue. Of course that is ground based observations. Space based is a different story. My guess is that there is 100% coverage for launches of ICBMs and probably reentry of launch vehicles.

Try to recognize the wider use of astronomy across the globe. The issue is that observations on land have been intense in many areas for a very long time. Where are the reports from astronomers? You have over a century of observers in all continents from which to choose.

[ChrLzs]

1 minute ago, stereologist said:

I believe you are the only one pushing 100%. I don't recall a single poster suggesting that. It is probably time to drop that issue.

This.

[seeder]

10 minutes ago, Fila said:

Thanks Stereo. I am totally open to being wrong.., its just that I need to see evidence. From my use with telescopes.., and star gazing (I won't call myself an amateur astronomer) there is no 100% coverage. I'm speaking from experience, so its hard to explain how it all works.

I just made up a quick diagram to help explain. Even if visibility is infinity.., we are still limited by distance and size of the objects.

We lose visual sight of a plane around 10kms away.

 

I take it you dont have this in your back garden?  Better than a 4 or 6 inch toy scope

Quote

The observatory's 1,000-foot (305-meter) radio telescope was the largest single-aperture telescope from its completion in 1963 until July 2016 when the Five hundred meter Aperture Spherical Telescope (FAST) in China was completed. It is used in three major areas of research: radio astronomy, atmospheric science, and radar astronomy. Scientists who want to use the observatory submit proposals that are evaluated by an independent scientific board.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arecibo_Observatory

 

 

[stereologist]

2 minutes ago, Fila said:

I feel I have discussed this already in this post here  

 

In that post you mention only 1 of several space based telescopes. Hubble for instance is not mentioned.

The space based scope do not have to deal with night time or clouds or whatever. Radio telescopes can operate in daytime.

You say " 2 hours of observation in one night will not show much movement. " That might be true for some objects that are far away, but asteroids have been tracked in real time.

Your post misses some of the important issues.

[Fila]

On 03/01/2018 at 9:40 AM, stereologist said:

I believe you are the only one pushing 100%. I don't recall a single poster suggesting that. It is probably time to drop that issue.

On 03/01/2018 at 9:36 AM, ChrLzs said:

Will you STOP using STRAWMAN arguments?  No-one here is claiming that our sky surveillance will pick up everything, and it is HIGHLY disingenuous to say that we are.

The thread is asking if its possible for an ETV to visit Earth without being detected. We can argue for.., or against.

I am not saying you (we) believe Earth has 100% coverage. I am saying that Earth doesn't have 100% coverage.., in response to suggestions that argue against the OP. Please do not take it personally.

[seeder]

and perhaps when you think of astronomers you forget the ones who use stuff like this too

Danish 1.54-metre telescope
https://www.eso.org/public/teles-instr/lasilla/danish154/

[Fila]

On 03/01/2018 at 9:46 AM, seeder said:

I take it you dont have this in your back garden?  Better than a 4 or 6 inch toy scope

She's a beauty isn't she. 2nd most powerful in the world.., one I discussed in a previous post in this thread. When I was discussing the 4" 6" scopes.., that was in reply to "amateur" astronomers. Its a bit confusing to keep up in these threads. Sorry for the confusion.

On 03/01/2018 at 9:51 AM, seeder said:

and perhaps when you think of astronomers you forget the ones who use stuff like this too

Danish 1.54-metre telescope
https://www.eso.org/public/teles-instr/lasilla/danish154/

No, I din't forget these beauties.. I covered this on page 2 or 3.. NASA actually uses a bunch of these ground based observation stations.  http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/314527-would-an-etv-be-able-to-visit-earth-secretly/?do=findComment&comment=6322618

NASA actuallly doesn't have the best scopes and requests time from many observation stations like these. The "monitoring" techniques and results are the same however.

Edited January 2, 2018 by Fila

[stereologist]

4 minutes ago, Fila said:

The thread is asking if its possible for an ETV to visit Earth without being detected. We can argue for.., or against.

I am not saying you (we) believe Earth has 100% coverage. I am saying that Earth doesn't have 100% coverage.., in response to suggestions that argue against the OP. Please do not take it personally.

Ground based cannot be 100% because 31% is land and of that not all is hospitable. But you have to consider space based and more than NASA.

[seeder]

2 minutes ago, Fila said:

She's a beauty isn't she. 2nd most powerful in the world.., one I discussed in a previous post in this thread. When I was discussing the 4" 6" scopes.., that was in reply to "amateur" astronomers. Its a bit confusing to keep up in these threads. Sorry for the confusion.

No. I covered this. NASA actually uses a bunch of these ground based observation stations. 

 

Good.... now tell me....what exactly does SETI do and how do they do it?   I have posted it twice already

heres just some of the kit SETI has

 

 SETI uses radio telescopes to make observations in and around our galactic neighborhood. SETI does have optical telescopes, but unlike optical telescopes that probe the visible light spectrum, radio telescopes monitor a broader range of the electromagnetic spectrum. The instruments at SETI can receive data from billions of radio frequencies, as well as processing them simultaneously. When you are in your car, you tune your radio to a specific wavelength to listen to music or news; the radio telescopes at SETI look for signals that have a narrow bandwidth with greater energy or intensity than the background static.

[seeder]

and I hate to repost stuff I posted earlier...but heres a graphic of the WORLD.....flattened out....green lines are flight paths....earth based airports/radar can track anything flying pretty much.... if we couldnt do that think of the amount of aircraft collisions there will be

 

[Area201]

On 1/1/2018 at 3:12 AM, Fila said:

Assuming an advanced ET race managed to send an vehicle to our planet.., would it be able to enter Earth's atmosphere without alerting everybody? Or do we humans have the skies monitored so well, this would be impossible.

I suspect we now have the satellites and technology to detect some/most of what comes into our atmosphere. But this is managed by the NRO that works closely with the NSA and if such "objects" are detected, the public is not made aware of it and kept in the dark. That is according to some whistle blowers/witnesses. If there are in fact black projects that operate strictly to spot UFOs/UAPs then by definition we would not know about what's going on and their findings.

Can we can track every satellite in space and identify (Chinas/Russia's etc)? Are some satellites disguised as one type with ulterior functions/ ie, spying, UFO/UAPs entering our atmosphere? 

Edited January 2, 2018 by Area201

[Fila]

On 03/01/2018 at 9:57 AM, seeder said:

 

Good.... now tell me....what exactly does SETI do and how do they do it?   I have posted it twice already

heres just some of the kit SETI has

 SETI uses radio telescopes to make observations in and around our galactic neighborhood. SETI does have optical telescopes, but unlike optical telescopes that probe the visible light spectrum, radio telescopes monitor a broader range of the electromagnetic spectrum. The instruments at SETI can receive data from billions of radio frequencies, as well as processing them simultaneously. When you are in your car, you tune your radio to a specific wavelength to listen to music or news; the radio telescopes at SETI look for signals that have a narrow bandwidth with greater energy or intensity than the background static.

From my understanding (not a SETI fan) they listen for radio frequencies under the impression that ET's would be sending signals this way. They do not scan all of space.., but a very small area. Some distant zone considered to be most likely habitable. A very very very small area from memory. This is what turned me off them actually. A complete waste of time and money imo.

Radiowaves travel at the speed of light.., and this sounds pretty damn fast. But really, in the grand scheme of things it isn't.

We have been broadcasting radio signals into space via TV stations and radio transmissions for about 80 years. That means our first transmission is 80 light years away, which seems like a long distance. It is.., but it isn't...

I have a copy of Universe Sandbox 2. Hours and hours of fun..... and you learn so much.

Edited January 2, 2018 by Fila

[seeder]

3 hours ago, Erno86 said:

 

Why send a robot to do a human's job?

Just put yourself in a ET civilization's place, who just might want to sent a probe to our planet that involved only just robots. Do you think they would they really want to take a chance on that? I mean...what if these robots fell into the wrong hands, or just went bonkers against another species with no realistic chance of controlling these robots from light years away? I'll take my odds that they would send sentient alien beings for first contact, and only use robots as servants for the boss man; whether in hazardous or life threatening situations --- thank-you!!!

 

some of our robots today can walk like a man.....and look like a man

If a robot isnt programmed to harm anyone, and if it isnt armed.... let it go bonkers....it will probably just walk around in circles....or get blown to bits by our military

Robotic exploration is a GOOD idea for any alien and even man.... the craft wont need life support systems, water or food....and with space travel....any weight that can be reduced is ideal

Plus robots wont suffer from the amount of radiation there is in space, and they wont suffer bone less due to lack of gravity either.  Robots are in some ways the ideal spaceman

 

 

 

 

Edited January 2, 2018 by seeder

[Fila]

On 03/01/2018 at 10:03 AM, seeder said:

and I hate to repost stuff I posted earlier...but heres a graphic of the WORLD.....flattened out....green lines are flight paths....earth based airports/radar can track anything flying pretty much.... if we couldnt do that think of the amount of aircraft collisions there will be

Thanks Seeder. These planes are tracked by transponders (and more recently) GPS. Legally all aircraft must have a transponder in order to be tracked.

I would assume UFOs don't have transponders.., otherwise we would be able to see their location and aircraft ID.

Edited January 2, 2018 by Fila

[seeder]

7 minutes ago, Fila said:

From my understanding (not a SETI fan) they listen for radio frequencies under the impression that ET's would be sending signals this way.

 

 Our radio telescopes....can work like this. Now asteroids dont have mechanical or digital radio do they, but RADIOWAVES can still pick them up!!

 

Quote

 

But we can do better than that. Here's a very simple cartoon that I drew, grossly simplifying what happens when you broadcast a signal at a lumpy object.The signal goes out as a nice waveform. It's reflected from the parts of the asteroid that are closest to the radio dish first, but while those first reflections are happening, the radio wave is still propagating toward more distant parts of the asteroid. So when the radio dish detects the return signal, the sharp signal has been spread out in time.

You can see how you could use these data to crudely estimate the size of the object you were looking at. The first reflection comes from the nearest parts of the object. The last reflections come from the most distant parts of the object that you can see. Take the amount of time that separates the first and last reflections, multiply it by the speed of light, and you get the distance between those two points. Then double that, assuming the body is quasi-spherical and has a hidden hemisphere behind the hemisphere we can see.

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2011/3248.html

 

 

 

[seeder]

43 minutes ago, Fila said:

I am saying that Earth doesn't have 100% coverage.., in response to suggestions that argue against the OP. Please do not take it personally.

 

Lets try this way. Lets say the North Pole is barren and devoid of life and humans dont care about it as nothing ever happens there anyway.....so the IDEAL place for an alien craft to slip in,,,, and again lets pretend it wasnt noticed by the world....

So the aliens think..."sod this its just ice and snow, lets go inland some more"

And soon as they do, soon as they enter any countries airspace.... BINGO.....we have eyes in the skies (and ears)  and we now see the alien craft.

Now does that make it easier?

 

 

Edited January 2, 2018 by seeder

[Fila]

On 03/01/2018 at 10:31 AM, seeder said:

Lets try this way. Lets say the North Pole is barren and devoid of life and humans dont care about it as nothing ever happens there anyway.....so the IDEAL place for an alien craft to slip in,,,, and again lets pretend it wasnt noticed by the world....

So the aliens think..."sod this its just ice and snow, lets go inland some more"

And soon as they do, soon as they enter any countries airspace.... BINGO.....we have eyes in the skies and ears)  and we now see the alien craft.

I guess this si where UFO reports come into play. Civilians, police, scientists, astronomers, politicians, teachers, military personnel claim to have seen UFOs. Some cases do have radar hits to verify visual observations. I guess the next problem is determining whether or not these claims are true? 

Or.., if impossible to prove due to a lack of evidence (observations, radar, video is not enough).., figure out some new way to examine these cases (as they will never be able to provide anymore evidence)

On 03/01/2018 at 10:03 AM, seeder said:

and I hate to repost stuff I posted earlier...but heres a graphic of the WORLD.....flattened out....green lines are flight paths....earth based airports/radar can track anything flying pretty much.... if we couldnt do that think of the amount of aircraft collisions there will be

 

For "tracking apps" like FlightRadar24.., when an aircraft is flying out of coverage Flightradar24 keeps estimating the position of the aircraft for up to 2 hours if the destination of the flight is known. For aircraft without known destination, position is estimated for up to 10 minutes. The position is calculated based on many different parameters and in most cases it's quite accurate, but for long flights the position can in worst cases be up to about 100 km (55 miles) off

 

PRIMARY RADAR

ATC Primary radar (no transponder) is not as good as we assume. Planes lose contact when flying over oceans, remote areas, and deserts.., and revert to procedural controls. The average distance is 160 - 200NM before radar loses an object. 

Most primary radars (non transponder) used for long range surveillance in ATC are operating in the L-Band..., signals which do not follow the curvature of the earth very well; At low altitude the range is limited because the aircraft are below the horizon. Radar is also shielded by terrain; in mountainous areas it is difficult to cover the valleys. In Europe, and I believe also in the US, high altitudes are well covered by primary radar, at low altitude there are many gaps.

Air Traffic Contol (ATC) radar locations Australia. Each only reaching approx 160NM each.

Locations of U.S. operational weather and air traffic control radars.

When the screens go dark, ATC breaks out the flight progress strips (and possibly the shrimp boats or other airplane-substitutes to lay on a map & push around) and uses brain power to substitute for the computer and radar. To facilitate separation in a non-radar environment the controllers are going to chuck you (and every other IFR flight) on airways, at standard IFR altitudes, quite probably with a specified airspeed, and they're going to route you navaid-to-navaid. (IFR Instrument flying rules)

By ensuring all flights are on known airways, at known altitudes, and at known speeds controllers have a good idea of who is where in their airspace. They will supplement this mental picture by asking pilots to report crossing certain fixes (intersections/radials), so that they know exactly where that flight is when they make their report (which will help them account for winds aloft, and give them an idea of what the flight's ground speed is in addition to the airspeed they're asking them to fly).

ATC aircraft separation is built upon the assumption of no radar by way position reports. At compulsory reporting points.

All of the above provides IFR to IFR separation, which is what the controller is concerned with. IFR-to-VFR (Visual Flying Rules) separation, which is normally supplemented by radar, becomes the responsibility of the pilots ("See and Avoid")

 

MILITARY

Some NAVY ships have radars on board.., but are generally not much more powerful than 250NM. They simply stay close enough in order to form a perimeter / fence. Here is an example from Japan's military radar defence.

A lower band (HF - UHF) radar can be used to look over the horizon (OTH radar). This type of radars is used for Air Defence purposes. The resolution is very poor compared to radars used for ATC but it serves well as an early warning system for incoming enemy aircraft and missiles. This type of radar requires huge antenna arrays, over a kilometre long and they consume enormous amounts of power. The effective range is typically about 3000 km. We have one in Australia that points towards Asia called the Jindalee Operational Radar Network.

https://www.avweb.com/news/sayagain/191625-1.html?redirected=1,https://www.airforce.gov.au/docs/JORN_FAQS.pdf, http://aip.dca.gov.my/aip pdf/ENR/ENR 1/ENR 1.6/Enr1_6.pdf, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jindalee_Operational_Radar_Network, https://www.ll.mit.edu/mission/aviation/faawxsystems/mpar.html

Edited January 3, 2018 by Fila

[Fila]

On 03/01/2018 at 10:23 AM, seeder said:

 Our radio telescopes....can work like this. Now asteroids dont have mechanical or digital radio do they, but RADIOWAVES can still pick them up!!

That's a great animation. I like it. I did cover this on page 3 however.. Even your quote explains how you could use the radar data to "crudely estimate" the size of the object you were looking at, assuming the body is quasi-spherical and has a hidden hemisphere behind the hemisphere we can see.

 

4) Radar is then used to get the clearest images. This is not perfect, for example. The black area of the asteroid is most likely a depression that did not reflect the radar beam back to Earth These single images are the best we could get of such a large object (3.6mi) 6.4 million miles away during the 15th to the 19th of December 2017. 

A spaceship is a tiny fraction of the 6 kilometre giant in size would not even show up on these images. In fact.., there could be smaller objects in these images right now.., but we cannot tell. (Approx 250 ft per pixel) 

The images are taken over many hours. Not LIVE recordings with motion detection alarms looking for UFOs. They are not interested in objects under 460ft. (The 460-foot cutoff point was established by a NASA NEO survey science definition team (SDT) in 2003)

Edited January 3, 2018 by Fila

[seeder]

22 minutes ago, Fila said:

 

A spaceship is a tiny fraction of the 6 kilometre giant in size would not even show up on these images. In fact.., there could be smaller objects in these images right now.., but we cannot tell. (Approx 250 ft per pixel)

 

Indeed, space craft will be smaller

Heres something very small that was just detected...incoming....
 

Quote

 

The space rock, which has a diameter between six and 21 metres (20 - 69 feet), was first spotted by the Mount Lemmon Survey (MLS) in Arizona on 28 December, writes AstroWatch.  

The next close approach is expected to take places on 16 June 2155 where it will fly at around 16,700,000 miles (26,900,000km) from our planet.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5228513/Asteroid-set-make-close-approach-Earth-HOURS.html#ixzz535GY9Dlz

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 3, 2018 by seeder

[Fila]

On 03/01/2018 at 1:18 PM, seeder said:

Indeed, space craft will be smaller

Heres something very small that was just detected...incoming....

I read about this in NASA's small body database.., but not of much interest to them. Seems like something that small would burn up in our atmosphere from my understanding.

27 observations over 4 days. Solution date Jan 2nd, 2018. This shows how they are not LIVE feeds of video being taken. Rather the scopes are connected to computers.., and single images are taken then compared over days (by computers) to see a change. Anything flying in between shots (or even in one shot, but not the rest) would not be recorded over the days, most likely seen as an anomaly, or camera glitch. Nothing of interest.

From memory bigger has entered and burnt up (hence NASA size limit), but I'll have to find sources first.

This was spotted by an optical 1.52 m Cassegrain reflector telescope.., most likely missed by the larger radio telescopes used to initially spot slight differences in "star" movements much much further away.

 

Edited January 3, 2018 by Fila

[godnodog]

On 1/1/2018 at 2:29 PM, Saru said:

Not an excuse. It's impossible to say one way or the other whether anyone is visiting us.

If that were to actually happen today, for instance, I'd imagine it would fundamentally alter our perceptions and our place in the universe. It would have massive repercussions for our society, our politics, our religions and our philosophies - who knows how it might impact our civilization in the long run.

I agree, but that only shows how stupid human still views itself on being in the center of the universe.

If an et visitation brings down religion, philosophical views nothing serious will be lost, its just another page for the history of mankind.

As to societies failling I see no real reasons (I dont remember one at this moment) for that to happen other than irrational fear, but than again humans are morons.

Edited January 3, 2018 by godnodog

[Fila]

On 03/01/2018 at 7:13 PM, godnodog said:

I agree, but that only shows how stupid human still views itself on being in the center of the universe.

If an et visitation brings down religion, philosophical views nothing serious will be lost, its just another page for the history of mankind.

As to societies failling I see no real reasons (I dont remember one at this moment) for that to happen other than irrational fear, but than again humans are morons.

People like you and I may not see this as an issue. But we should consider others. My brother has the same view on every topic.., its whatever he thinks is best, and screw others opinions. His perspective is best.., so we should all so whatever he wants.

And I believe this is what's wrong with the world in general. What if we all acted this way? It would be chaos.

Its always "us" versus "them".., when we should be able to be empathetic towards others emotions. Or at least.., tolerant and not angry or forceful of our agenda. Its why I treat religious people with courtesy. I feel sorry for them, and want to help. But yelling at them, or calling them idiots and laughing at their beliefs doesn't "help" them. No-one likes to be told they are wrong.., you get more defensive if anything.

If we are smarter than most people (as we all like to think) then we should be smart enough to approach the situation with consideration for others.

But, tbh. If I really think about it? If tomorrow aliens were visiting, and spaceships were flying around.., I would not be going to work that day. I would be too interested in new opportunities.., I wanna see them, ask questions, and possibly question their intentions and asking why they get to traverse the world without borders.., while I am stuck in a crappy job. I would question my own life, and what I want to achieve.., and others would never trust them I'd assume. This may cause riots, demanding leaders to take action etc.

There is already enough hatred and racism in the world, intolerance of each other already. This would not disappear because an ET showed up.

We have people who want genocide on races of people.., religious fanatics who would hate an ET perhaps.. I dunno hey. So many variables. Too many to make a judgement on what everyone would do, and how they'd handle it.

And anyone who says "screw the weak, survival of the fittest" is not fit to be in a position of power.

Edited January 3, 2018 by Fila